create_npc_mnemonsCreate NPC mnemons (FACTION or INDIVIDUAL). npcType is REQUIRED on each item. Use memberNpcEntryIds (on FACTIONs) and affiliationEntryIds (on INDIVIDUALs) to wire membership; the server projects into MEMBER relationships. Players may not call this — GM/co-GM only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the server-side projection into MEMBER relationships and the GM/co-GM authorization requirement. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with a create operation, so there is no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key usage details and a permission note. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the detailed input schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: purpose, type-specific requirements, membership wiring, and authorization. It leaves nothing critical unexplained for selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies how memberNpcEntryIds and affiliationEntryIds relate to npcType and that they trigger server-side MEMBER relationship projection, adding semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the schema already provides per-field descriptions, and the 'npcType is REQUIRED' note redundantly restates the schema's required array.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'NPC mnemons' and explicitly enumerates the two types (FACTION or INDIVIDUAL), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling mnemons creation tools by focusing on NPC-specific entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use the tool (creating NPC mnemons), clarifies type-specific membership wiring, and provides a clear permission exclusion ('Players may not call this — GM/co-GM only'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-NPC mnemons, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The mnemon tools are separated by type (NPC, Location, Quest, etc.), and other domains like guild, forum, and friend management are also well-segmented. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Some minor deviations: 'describe_mnemon_types' instead of 'list_mnemon_types', and 'invite_user_by_email' has a slightly different structure. Overall quite consistent.
With 63 tools, the server is quite heavy. While each tool serves a specific purpose for campaign management, the sheer number may be overwhelming. It is borderline but still reasonable given the broad domain coverage.
The tool set covers CRUD for most resources (campaigns, sessions, mnemon types, guilds, friends, forum). Notable gaps: no delete_campaign or delete_session, and update_campaign is limited. However, the core workflows are well-covered.